NNT wrote:
If the LEO is not there on official business, do you not have the right to ask them to leave? If there on official business, then they are the authority for the moment. You can't fairly say 'I know a murder was committed on my property, but you have no right to be here, now go...'. But if they are not there on official business and wander onto your property and sit down on your deck to have lunch by your pool, you have a right to have them leave.

Even if they are on official business, I would think that we have a right to deny entry unless they have a warrant. A person could make entry conditional on the officer disarming themselves. I can't imagine this working out well though.

Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy

Liberty wrote:A person could make entry conditional on the officer disarming themselves. I can't imagine this working out well though.

Definitely not with a Texas legislature that doesn't respect private property rights.

Can you clarify this comment? On the question of prohibiting guns, I think 30.06 / 30.07 strikes a balance that is far more in the favor of property rights than the 2A rights of customers, employees, and other visitors. Is this what you are referring to, or is it something else? If you are talking about EPA restrictions on the use of our property, I agree, but that is federal and not the state.

My employer's policy says no guns, and then says that the penalty for violating the policy is punishment "up to and including termination". The policy is also technically in violation of Texas law since it says that you can be fired for having a gun in your car in the parking lot. Not sure if this alone would invalidate the entire policy under Texas law.

I am not planning to carry regardless because I like my job (at least most days). But I'm curious, Is this valid legal notice under 30.06 and/or 30.07?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:My employer's policy says no guns, and then says that the penalty for violating the policy is punishment "up to and including termination". The policy is also technically in violation of Texas law since it says that you can be fired for having a gun in your car in the parking lot. Not sure if this alone would invalidate the entire policy under Texas law.

I am not planning to carry regardless because I like my job (at least most days). But I'm curious, Is this valid legal notice under 30.06 and/or 30.07?

They have no legal muscle to stop you from having your gun in their parking lot by threat of statutory violation and consequent criminal or civil punishment.

Their only muscle is with the employer/employee relationship where, in Texas, by way of published employment practices, they do swing a big sword.

My employer's policy says no guns, and then says that the penalty for violating the policy is punishment "up to and including termination". The policy is also technically in violation of Texas law since it says that you can be fired for having a gun in your car in the parking lot. Not sure if this alone would invalidate the entire policy under Texas law.

The so-called Parking Lot law leaves a few exceptions in place for certain types of businesses such as refineries, chemical plants, etc... where carry is still prohibited. Noting these, if a parking lot has controlled access and is properly posted, it is prohibited to carry and perhaps to even have the firearm in your vehicle.

tbryanh wrote:So if the company handbook says no firearms allowed and you are caught carrying, it is a Class C misdemeanor. If you are told to leave at that point and you refuse, it becomes a Class A misdemeanor. Is this correct?

No. You are confusing two things, criminal statutes and civil statutes.

If a company handbook, in written form, simply states that "no handguns are allowed to be carried by employees while at work" then all that has happened is that the employer has conveyed to the reader of the handbook his expectations that continued employment depends on the employee complying with the handbook admonishments. The consequence of violating this handbook statement may result in being fired, but nothing criminal.

If, however, the handbook, as a document under 30.06 and 30.07, has written in it...“Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”

or...“Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly”

and the employee is required by some mechanism of employment to read the handbook, then that employee has been properly notified under 30.06 and/or 30.07 and failure could not only mean termination of employment but also a Class C (and possibly Class A) criminal trespass.

tex

Last edited by thetexan on Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Just remember, when an employee signs that paper that they have received and read the employee handbook, then the employee has been given notice at least civilly.

One may have a LEO not on official business to leave their property as long as the reason is nondiscriminatory or is not because they are an LEO or carrying a firearm.

Texas LTC Instructor, NRA pistol instructor, RSO, NRA Endowment Life , TSRA, Glock enthusiast (tho I have others)
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to add it to a fruit salad.

You will never know another me, this could be good or not so good, but it is still true.